other parts of the book occnr also in these two sections. Thus eh. xxiv. 20 (ns we shall notice directly) appears at eh. xiii. 9; eh. xxiv. 23, "To have respect of persons is not good," at eh. xxviii. 21; and eh. xxiv. 33, 34 nt eh. vi. 10, ll. The first of the appendices is evidently later than the first collection; the structure of the verses is less terse, the parallelism is not so strongly marked, sometimes entirely wanting, and the sense is often not completed under three or even five verses. A comparison of the way in which the repetitions above indicated are introduced would lead to the impression that the former was the earlier, and that the appendix-writer derived certain sentences from that. Thus in eh. xxii. 14 we have tbe statement, "The month of strange women is a deep pit;" but in eh. xxiii. 27 this is introduced as a reason for the advice in the previous verse, and amplified thus: "For a whore is a. deep ditch, and a strange woman is a narrow pit." So the verse, eh. xi. 14, is enlarged into two in eh. xxiv. 5, 6; and the unvarnished gnome ( eh. xiii. 9), "The light of the righteous rejoiceth, but the lamp of the wicked shall be put out," becomes, under the manipa.lation of the transcriber, a warning in quite a different direction : "Fret not thyself because of evil-doers, neither be thon. envious at the wicked; for there will be no reward to the evil man; the lamp of the wicked shall be put out" (eh. xxiv. 19, 20). Who can doubt that the sim- pler form of these sayings is the original ? Hitzig claims an ex:ilian date for ·this section on the strength of an Aramaic colouring which other critics deny, and a, supposed borrowing of passages or phrases from Jeremiah which seems to be wholly imaginary. How could a poet, banished from his own country, ma.ke a point of not removing the ancient landmark (eh. xxii. 28; xxiii. 10), or enjoin his hearers to serve their king and avoid innova- tors (eh. xxiv. 21)? There is, indeed, nothing to guide us to any certainty in the question, but the style and language reflect those of the first portion of our book, and it may possibly have been written abont the same period. As in eh. iii. 31, so often in this section (e.g. eh. xxii. 22; xxiv. 15, etc.), there are hints of oppressive rulers and iniquitous governors, which would lead us to think of Manasseh and his like. It is reasonable to conclude that this appendix: was added after Hezekiah's time by an editor who had before him the first great collection. The same holds good concerning the second little appendix (eh. xxiv. 23-34), which seems to be of contempo- raneous origin. Nowack, by comparing the two similar passages in eh. vi. 10, 11 and xxiv. 33, 34, concludes that the former is original, and that the appendix-writer has somewhat altered the sentenco in transferring it to his own repertory. We have in some degree indicated what may be reasonably determined about the date and authorship of the central portions of onr book. It remains to investigate the beginning and the closing sections. The intro- duction (eh. i. 1-6), describing the character and intent of the work, applies virtually not only to the collection immediately succeeding ( eh. i. 7-ix.), but to other parts of the.book, whether the writer had these parts XX lNTRODUCTION TO
before him or not. Who is the author of this first section, the proem, as it has been called, is a matter of much dispute. There is some difficulty in at,tributing it to Solomon himself. The opening words do not necessarily imply that Solomon wrote all that follo,vs. " The Proverbs of Solomon" may be introduced as a formal heading of what may be a gathering of fragments from many quarters, composed in Solomon's spirit and instinct with his wisdom, but not actually received from his lips or writings. There are passages which seem to be derived from Isaiah's prophecy; e.g. eh. ii. 15, "Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths," is parallel to Isa. lix. 8; eh. i. 24, 26, 27, to Isa. I.xv. 12 and lxvi. 4. But tbe language is not identical, and the prophet may have been indebted to the moralist. More to the purpose is the £act that the second part (eh. x. 1- xxii. 16) is superscribed "The Proverbs of Solomon," which would be unnecessary and misleading if the first part was also his composition. To this it may be answered that this title is more especially appropriate to t-he section as containing proverbs rather than hortatory addresses; and if introduced by a different editor the discrepancy is easily accountell £or. Others insist that the religious ideas and the form in which they are expressed are quite foreign to Solomon's time and standpoint. If the technical form of the mashal, consisting of distichs displaying well- balanced and antithetical clauses, be the form which alone appertains to Solomon's age, then it must be allowed that the introductory section contains very few proper mashals, but rather is composed of odes of varying length, in which, as it were incidentally, a few mashals are inserted. The terse single proverb is remarkably absent, and descriptive poems, lengthy exhortations, and developments of a given truth, are the common characteristics of the piece. Here again, however, there is no certainty that Solomon regarded himself as bound to keep to one law in the composition of proverbs, or that, he did not employ other and more elaborate methods of expressing his sentiments. The presumption is oertainly against the two parts having the same author, but the idea is not :irrational. Delitzsch has produced another argument. He dwells upon the difierent idea of Wisdom afforded by the two sections. In the former, Wisdom appears as an independent personality, dwelling with God before all creation, and operating in the production of the visible world, and busy- ing itself with the affairs of men ; in the latter, Wisdom is a moral quality, which is grounded in the fear of God, teaches men to recognize the truth, and to regulate their lives according to the rules of religion. Doubtless the view of Wisdom in the proem is an advance on and a development of the conception in the other section. Speculation had progressed, schools of wise men bad been formed, preceptors addressed their pupils as "son," and Wisdom was regarded as the chief motor of moral and religious action. The chokma is no longer an idea., a code, or a. subjective thought; it has an objectiY-e existence, carried back to eternity, fellow-worker with God. This consideration is decisive against the identity of authorship in the two 'l'HE PROVERBS. xxi